Cooley_et_al_data__Agg_Nov2024_dP.csv
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A global 'climate opportunity benefit' of regeneration: meta-analysis shows warming from soil CH4 and N2O is small in forests relative to agricultureSavannah S. Cooley1*, Elisabeth Moore1, Jianna Martinez1, Jocelyn Fahlen1, Erin Maybach1, Maya Gollerkeri1, Anjali Rao Vasa1, Sian Kou-Giesbrecht2, Alexandra M. Huddell3, Linnea Norton1, Kerry Cawse-Nicholson4, Ruth DeFries1, Maria Uriarte1, Duncan N.L. Menge11 Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University2 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Dalhousie University3 Department of Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware4 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology * Corresponding author: sc4751@columbia.eduAbstractGlobal assessments of ecosystem regeneration as a climate mitigation strategy have traditionally focused on CO2, despite the acknowledgement that methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are also important greenhouse gasses (GHGs). We conducted a meta-analysis of studies that measured soil CH4 and N2O fluxes in unmanaged regenerating forested and savanna ecosystems, with a focus on understanding biome-specific differences in these GHG fluxes compared to a counterfactual of agricultural land use. We expected most regenerating ecosystems to act as small CH4 sinks and relatively larger N2O sources, with a net warming combined CH4-N2O effect. Three of the five forested biomes we studied followed this pattern: subtropical/tropical forest, subtropical/tropical savanna and temperate conifer forest (0.98 ± 0.44, 0.23 ± 0.07, and 0.63 ± 0.37 Mg CO2e ha-1 yr-1, respectively). Results suggest that even after 100 years of regeneration, the radiative cooling of the climate from CO2 sequestration still exceeds the radiative warming driven by the net CH4-N2O effect among all ecosystems on average globally. We also found that the “climate opportunity benefit” of ecosystem regeneration—the difference of the net CH4-N2O effects of agriculture vs. regeneration—yields a net cooling effect for all biomes. However, our results underscore that it is unsound to use ecosystem regeneration as a justification for the continuation of fossil fuel emissions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.830 | 0.697 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".